Today’s Damascus bombing, the deadliest yet of Syria’s nascent civil war, has sparked a new flurry of concern about the growing role of terrorism in fighting the Assad regime, with government officials and foreign allies alleging “foreign backing” for the attacks.
There’s not much secret that Western and gulf nations have been cheerfully backing the rebels, hoping to secure favor with a new regime. With al-Qaeda and other al-Qaeda styled organizations ratcheting up their own participation, it is inevitable to question where these interests intersect.
Syrian officials say that the escalation proves that nations like Saudi Arabia are participating in backing the terrorist factions. Russian officials declined to name any specific nation, but seemed to concur with the assessment, saying that certain nations were “doing practical things so that the situation in Syria explodes in a literal and figurative sense.” Chinese officials likewise expressed opposition to the “outside military intervention.”
It is not at all clear, of course, what connections there might be between the terrorist groups and the more politically palatable rebel factions. Comparative Western ambivalence over massive bombings that kill scores of civilians is certain to add to the perception, whether true or not, that they don’t really care how Syria gets to regime change, so long as it gets there.
This Syria business is a very complicated and muddy business. I lived in and loved Syria for nine and a half years. It was peaceful and religiously and politically tolerant for the most part, at least toward me as an American. The Syrians seemed to be capable of separating politics from people, so what has been going on the past year plus is so un-Syrian in my estimation. I do not approve of arbitrary arrests, gangs of youth policing the street for the regime, heavy-handed squashing of peaceful protests. I believe in freedom.
Yet, I have always felt the alternative to the Assad family is going to be chaos and more like Iraq than Tunisia. I never felt endangered in my nine years there, and now there is danger all around. It's interesting that just when Kofi Annan makes a ceasefire deal, the Western and other powers offer more help to the Syrian Free Army. Is it that they don't want peace there? Let's face it, it's to the US government's advantage to have a weakened Syria.
I'm not surprised at all to find out that many of the Syrian's government's claims that there was foreign intervention are true. But it's very sad to see that all obvious alternatives are going to be bad.
These are the groups that US and EU support, these terrorist groups are those whom are paid by Saudis and UAE, Turkey and Jordanian and it shouldent surprise anyone if Israel is involved. From day one the peace was rejected by Hillary Clinton and war is the orchestrated agenda by these terrorists gropus, the entity of Sadis and UAE, Turkey and Jordanian. The oposition of the Syrian government, as is called, in Japan have said that the bombing is the work of the Syrian regime, yet it has all the marking of Al Queda. Beside what would the Syrian government gain by such act…? the support of the Syrian people…? Syrian people allready have annonsed that: God – Syria and Bashir and that they dont want anything but that.
"they don’t really care how Syria gets to regime change, so long as it gets there."
This misses the point. A new regime would very likely be as unliked by them as the old. Maybe worse.
Their real agenda is to deprive Iran of its Syrian ally, and remove pressure on return of Golan and its water. They don't care what happens to Syria or Syrians, as long as Syria is removed from the equation.
Title: "Syria, Allies See Foreign Backing Behind Terror Attacks"
Others and Antiwar not ?
Does Assad bomb its own government and security forces???
Is Assad interested to have terror in his country, in order to invite NATO?
"Damascus bombing, the deadliest yet of Syria’s nascent civil war, has sparked a new flurry of concern about the growing role of terrorism in fighting the Assad regime, with government officials and foreign allies alleging “foreign backing” for the attacks."
Why in opposite to heavily critic of using force against the killing terrorists sent in by USA/Saudis, here it only sparks "concern" about the growing role of terrorism, with government officials and foreign allies alleging “foreign backing” for the attacks." ?
"It is not at all clear, of course, what connections there might be between the terrorist groups and the more politically palatable rebel factions." Why should this be relevant ? Why guiding in mind traps when anything is clear from the beginning?
The USA has planned according to US general Wesley Clark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8&feature=p... this whole list of wars against former Soviet client states (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran etc.) years ago and did more or less use the same "US Army special forces unconventional war" tactics along with "Revolution consultants like OTPOR http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=lpXbA6yZY-8to spark civil wars, unrest and NATO attacks.
Perpetrated by our good friends from the House of Saud and their band of Wahabi henchmen.
Did you hear that the Saudis are heroes? They planted another fake bomb in an airplane, then saved everyone from it. Pay no attention to what's behind the curtain.
Everything is going as planned according to the PNACs policy paper: a Clean Break:A New strategy For Securing The Realm.
It should be noted that carbombs were the modus operandi of the criminal regime occupying Palestine during their occupation of South Lebanon.